WI: No Justinian's conquests?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

Eh, the whole battleground between the Byzantines and Sassanids on their fronts had pretty much consolidated holding strategic cities. Breakouts had become increasingly rare and as such the two sides had begun using proxies to attack each other beyond their borders (Ghassanids, Lakhmids, Turkics, Franks, etc).

The last war's successes for the Sassanids were based on the fact that the Byzantines were in a state of anarchy/civil war which allowed the Sassanids to consolidate and break through Byzantine positions over a period close to a decade.

Khosrau II was a thrice cursed exception and instead of just getting tribute from Heraclius he continued the conflict and ruined everyone for it!!! Fortunately, Justinian was fighting his namesake Khosrau the First.
That sucks. If only he had hindsight.. Or was assassinated early in his reign.

Anyway does anyone have any idea on what would happen if the Byzantines just didn't attempt expand at all during the Justinian period?
 
If the Slavs remain on the north side of the Danube, they would be in a position to form a nation within the Pannonian Plains. Although one question: would the Bulgar conquest be butterflied away?

I think any Slavic polity would probably form around the Carpathians and Wallachia. The evidence is extremely hazy, but I've read that the latest scholarship suggests eastern Romania, Moldova and western Ukraine are probably the most likely areas for a Slavic homeland. More likely you'd see a number of smaller Slavic kingdoms developing over the course of the seventh and eighth centuries.

Most likely. If Byzantium was at its Pre-Sassanid war strength, it would absolutely destroy them.

True, but the Huns and Avars were able to do fairly well against the later Roman state. Don't forget!

Anyway does anyone have any idea on what would happen if the Byzantines just didn't attempt expand at all during the Justinian period?

I think an earlier form of "Great Schism" is quite likely without the Empire being directly involved in the politics of the city of Rome: Justinian will be much more able to make more theological compromises with the anti-Chalcedonians than he was IOTL when he had to worry about bringing along the Italian and African bishops too. I'd say an earlier form of Monothelitism is quite likely.

In Italy, the Ostrogoths are more likely than not to convert to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy at some point, probably in the second half of the sixth century. The Vandals might stick to Arianism for a while longer, but I'd be surprised if they were still Arian by 650.

Islam is obviously butterflied by this, but the bubonic plague is not, so the Empire isn't going to be noticeably stronger by Justinian's death than it was IOTL: I'm of the opinion that blaming the Western wars for a decline in imperial power is a bit of a chimera given they were basically done on the cheap and only in Narses' final (and totally successful) campaign of 552 was serious money and manpower put into them. Arguably the northern Balkans suffered, but this was a region that had been already quite badly ravaged by the Goths in the 370s and 380s, Huns in the 440s, and then Ostrogoths in the 480s. Roman civic life in the region had retreated to fortified strongholds long before Justinian was even born.
 
If only he had hindsight.
Ye, if only he had hindsight.

The core of the Bysantine Empire in the end was the Balkans. And it was the Balkans who suffered most in Justinian's reign. He stripped the border of the troops to support the new conquests in the West. And the Norhtern barbarians went even to the walls of Constantinople and ravaged the land once again.
If only he had concentrated on the imperial border on the Balkans...
the Eastern Roman Empire might have survived till nowadays. :)
 

Deleted member 67076

Ye, if only he had hindsight.

The core of the Bysantine Empire in the end was the Balkans. And it was the Balkans who suffered most in Justinian's reign. He stripped the border of the troops to support the new conquests in the West. And the Norhtern barbarians went even to the walls of Constantinople and ravaged the land once again.
If only he had concentrated on the imperial border on the Balkans...
the Eastern Roman Empire might have survived till nowadays. :)
Now that's just depressing:(

Also, would latin still be spoken if the Conquests went really fast or successful in the empire?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now that's just depressing:(

Also, would latin still be spoken if the Conquests went really fast or successful in the empire?

The core of the Empire being the Balkans is pretty throughly mocked by the history of the empire from this period to the 11th century, where the Balkans were mostly outside Imperial rule and the Empire faced off against enemies literally on every side.

As for Latin: Latin never seems to have been that firmly entrenched in the East, not sure on the state of the West.
 

Deleted member 67076

The core of the Empire being the Balkans is pretty throughly mocked by the history of the empire from this period to the 11th century, where the Balkans were mostly outside Imperial rule and the Empire faced off against enemies literally on every side.

As for Latin: Latin never seems to have been that firmly entrenched in the East, not sure on the state of the West.
I recall hearing Vulgar Latin was still spoken until the late 600s or 700s. My guess is that with the added stability and a much larger amount of speakers it probably wouldn't change into Italian as we know it. Probably be like middle English is to our English. Correct me if Im wrong
 
I recall hearing Vulgar Latin was still spoken until the late 600s or 700s. My guess is that with the added stability and a much larger amount of speakers it probably wouldn't change into Italian as we know it. Probably be like middle English is to our English. Correct me if Im wrong

I'm no linguistic scholar, but that sounds credible to me - although I can't verify it.
 
I recall hearing Vulgar Latin was still spoken until the late 600s or 700s. My guess is that with the added stability and a much larger amount of speakers it probably wouldn't change into Italian as we know it. Probably be like middle English is to our English. Correct me if Im wrong
Romanian language is a Romance language spoken by around 24 million people as a native language, primarily in Romania and Moldova, and by another 4 million people as a second language. It has official status in Romania, Republic of Moldova, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in Serbia and in the autonomous Mount Athos in Greece.

450px-Romance_languages_and_Romanian.png
 

Deleted member 67076

Romanian language is a Romance language spoken by around 24 million people as a native language, primarily in Romania and Moldova, and by another 4 million people as a second language. It has official status in Romania, Republic of Moldova, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in Serbia and in the autonomous Mount Athos in Greece.

But would Latin proper survive?
 
The core of the Bysantine Empire in the end was the Balkans.
No, it was not. I can see absolutely zero evidence to support this notion.

I recall hearing Vulgar Latin was still spoken until the late 600s or 700s. My guess is that with the added stability and a much larger amount of speakers it probably wouldn't change into Italian as we know it. Probably be like middle English is to our English. Correct me if Im wrong
In a world where Justinian's conquests happened very quickly, you might see Latin evolve more slowly, but I think a more likely outcome is that the language would quite quickly become heavily salted with Greek. Certainly the primary language of government in the Exarchates of Italy and Africa was Greek in the seventh century, and Justinian himself was legislating in Greek from about 550 onward.
 

Deleted member 67076

In a world where Justinian's conquests happened very quickly, you might see Latin evolve more slowly, but I think a more likely outcome is that the language would quite quickly become heavily salted with Greek. Certainly the primary language of government in the Exarchates of Italy and Africa was Greek in the seventh century, and Justinian himself was legislating in Greek from about 550 onward.
So ATL Sicilian instead of Italian basically?
 
Interesting... I've been reading "The Gothic War", which covers the operations in Italy at this time. One of the big PODs that occurred to me was "WI Justinian wasn't so damn paranoid" and let Belisarius finish the job. Another was WI the Persians stayed quiet on their side of the border, so that Belisarius wasn't yanked back to the east to defend against them. As for the OP... it probably would have been better for the average peasant or man in the street if Justinian hadn't embarked on his war of conquest... the main thing you get from the reading is that the commoners suffered horribly from siege, famine, and plague as Italy was warred over from end to end. With the troops home in the ERE, it's likely that the assorted barbarians wouldn't have been tempted to go raiding into the empire. And Rome wouldn't have been besieged (three times) and more of the city might have survived to the present day...
 
Interesting... I've been reading "The Gothic War", which covers the operations in Italy at this time. One of the big PODs that occurred to me was "WI Justinian wasn't so damn paranoid" and let Belisarius finish the job. Another was WI the Persians stayed quiet on their side of the border, so that Belisarius wasn't yanked back to the east to defend against them. As for the OP... it probably would have been better for the average peasant or man in the street if Justinian hadn't embarked on his war of conquest... the main thing you get from the reading is that the commoners suffered horribly from siege, famine, and plague as Italy was warred over from end to end. With the troops home in the ERE, it's likely that the assorted barbarians wouldn't have been tempted to go raiding into the empire. And Rome wouldn't have been besieged (three times) and more of the city might have survived to the present day...
Well if Justinian gave Belisarius the wiggle room and supplies/men he needed, there wouldn't have been 3 sieges of Rome.

But yeah, blame his wife for him constantly getting in Belisarius's way.
 
Blame him for him getting in Belisarius's way.

Whatever Theodora thought of Belisarius, Justinian was Emperor, and the decision to do X was his - whoever advised him to do it.

That's the thing about being an autocrat. Just as supreme power rests in your hands, so does supreme responsibility.
 
Blame him for him getting in Belisarius's way.

Whatever Theodora thought of Belisarius, Justinian was Emperor, and the decision to do X was his - whoever advised him to do it.

That's the thing about being an autocrat. Just as supreme power rests in your hands, so does supreme responsibility.

I know, but what I'm saying is, if you get Theodora out of the way somehow, Justinian is gonna be much more helpful to Belisarius. It's his decision ultimately, but her influence on how he treated Belisarius can not be ignored.
 
I know, but what I'm saying is, if you get Theodora out of the way somehow, Justinian is gonna be much more helpful to Belisarius. It's his decision ultimately, but her influence on how he treated Belisarius can not be ignored.

I think that says something about how receptive Justinian was to criticism of Belisarius.

Even if he trusted Theodora's judgment, this is still saying "I trust her more than I trust Belisarius."

Trying to present it a matter of her influence - and I'm not going to say her efforts had no role - gives Justinian an out and a scapegoat that he does not deserve.

Getting rid of her only works if he doesn't hide behind someone else as a reason.
 
I think that says something about how receptive Justinian was to criticism of Belisarius.

Even if he trusted Theodora's judgment, this is still saying "I trust her more than I trust Belisarius."

Trying to present it a matter of her influence - and I'm not going to say her efforts had no role - gives Justinian an out and a scapegoat that he does not deserve.

Getting rid of her only works if he doesn't hide behind someone else as a reason.
I agree completely. But for a TL's sake, getting rid of Theodora would be the easiest path.
 
Top